Fence Torn Down During Anti-WTO Clashes

Man stabs himself in WTO protest
From correspondents in Cancun, Mexico
September 11, 2003

A SOUTH Korean man was in hospital after stabbing himself during a protest that ended in confrontation with police who prevented demonstrators from reaching a World Trade Organisation conference.

Lee Kyang Hae, 55, who heads the South Korean Federation of Farmers and Fishermen, was in a serious condition with a lung perforation, according to doctors who treated him at Cancun's general hospital.

Fellow activists said Lee stabbed himself publicly during a demonstration in Cancun against the WTO, which started a five-day conference earlier in the day.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7231456%255E1702,00.html

What is the point of this protest again?

From the photos posted it looks like a bunch of protesters are attacking police with sticks, shields and other weapons.

As someone who has spent five years working on environmental issues and issues of fair trade, I think protests like the one pictures play into our opponents hands.

I'm sure someone will shoot back that "They started," or" the pigs deserve it" but regardless it hurts our cause.

Howabout a global boycott of suspect goods? A _peacful_ demonstration? A counter summit?

Disorganized, violent protests serve only to further marginalize ALL of the WTO's critics as leftist hatemongers. And frankly, that's why our side will never win.

But maybe I'm missing something....

I have to agree unorganized violence is an ineffective way to make ANY statement
signed CD

Europe and Mexico don't have the nonviolent tradition that the U.S. developed during the civil rights era with Martin Luther King Jr. etc. Daily life in Mexico can be quite offensive to the sensibilities - this is why people risk their lives walking through the desert and paying a lot of money to sneak into the United States to work for sub-minimum wage.

A recent article said that the typical four family household has to pay 8 bribes to authorities per year, and that bribes are 2% of the economy. People have to face getting stopped by corrupt police as a daily fact of life - this is a 'turn off' just as much as people fighting back against police. There are people sitting or rotting in Mexican jails for over a year waiting trial for petty theft of food. My wealthy friend got thrown into jail when a shopkeeper (who basically was scamming him) accused him of stealing a pair of socks, and he testifies to all these poor people sitting in jail without trial.
Have you read about the PRI or the murders in border towns? This violence is a drop in the bucket in Mexico.

I'm telling ya! With that kung fu kick the guy with the red pants delivered I can honestly say I do get invigorated. I consider myself a Trotskyist myself. But I say god bless em(If there is a god). Its alot better than seeing photos of stupid liberal hippies lay down while they TAKE the beating the cops dish out. The only thing nonviolence breeds is contempt and ridicule. Unless they got some hot/cute girls who strip down naked of course.

I'm telling ya! With that kung fu kick the guy with the red pants delivered I can honestly say I do get invigorated. I consider myself a Trotskyist myself. But I say god bless em(If there is a god). Its alot better than seeing photos of stupid liberal hippies lay down while they TAKE the beating the cops dish out. The only thing nonviolence breeds is contempt and ridicule. Unless they got some hot/cute girls who strip down naked of course.

Actually, you are missing something.

"Our side" will never win WITHOUT these type of tactics (along with the tactics that you employ which certainly have their place).

Quite frankly, I could care less how the corporate media portrays our resistance; if we need to rely on the likes of the SF Chronicle or Wall Street Journal to give us good press, we're in big trouble. A mass movement must contain a diversity of tactics, styles of discourse and politics.

Militant resistance of the type we see here is valuable as it serves as an inspiration to others that fighting back is possible (if they can resist like this in Mexico, which is practically a fascist state when it comes to police repression, we certainly can do it in North America, where activists don't get "disappeared" and where there is still some measure of civil liberties, for now, anyway).

I suggest Ward Churchill's "Pacifism as Pathology" for a more complete understanding of these issues: in this book, the Native American scholar and activist argues that dogmatic pacifism is holding back the anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist movements. Many well-meaning (but priveleged) middle class activists simply don't understand that the use of solely "non-violent" tactics is not an option for most of the people in the "Third World," nor for many living in the "internal colonies" of the ghettos, barrios, and reservations of North America.

Quite frankly, I am pleased to see people fighting back in this manner. When courageous non-violent activists met in Seattle to peacefully blockade the WTO meetings there, they were met with pepper spray, tear gas, baton charges and other forms of police repression.

While not everybody can use these type of tactics (the elderly, people with disabilities, those with children, etc.), those who do deserve our support, not our condemnation, just as those who engage in less riskier types of activities also deserve our support, as do those "non-violent" activists who courageously put their bodies on the line, often in the face of brutal police repression.

Sue Collis of the kick-ass Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) said it best: "There is a place in our movement for everybody and just as we are not going to criticize our judge somebody for throwing a rock at a cop's head, we also don't criticize or judge people who do casework, support people in court, work on newsletters and websites, do childcare, etc."

"There is a place in our movement for everybody and just as we are not going to criticize our judge somebody for throwing a rock at a cop's head, we also don't criticize or judge people who do casework, support people in court, work on newsletters and websites, do childcare, etc."

The big WTO style protests serve a few purposes. They draw groups together from around the world and build connections. They get a message about the WTO and Capitalism out through the corporate media. They inspire people who already agree through coverage in the alternative media. And they send a message to those attending the WTO meetings and to cities that want to host such events.

Nonviolence leads to less coverage and doesnt necessarilly even lead to more people attending a protest. Seattle invigorated protesters because the violence created a sense of momentum.

That said, to argue that one should not oppose property damage due to a need to support "diversity of tactics" is nonsensical. Black block types are not respecting diversity of tactics when they denounce "nonviolent hippies". One should judge tactics on how those tactics effect the protest not out of some strange idea of "diversity". Many anarchists were quick to condemn the attack on the WTC. Should actions on that scale fall under respect for diversity? Was it the motivation of the attack that makes it condemnable (revenge for US actions in the Middle East), the group carrying it out (religious conservatives), or can tactics be questioned in terms of their effects.

So far the main tactical advantage small scale property damage has had at protests is press coverage. In a sense "bad press" is better than no press at all and the mainstream media isnt going to cover a meeting of economists unless there is something exciting to show for it. The main negative side to violence at protests is all of the effort that has to go into legal support. In a sense this is a questionable negative. Is it bad that there is still work going on around police actions in Genoa? It does raises public conciousness about police brutality so it depends if the raising of public conciousness about police brutality is worth the time that cant be spent on other causes.

There is another negative though and that is in the direction it moves activism and activists. A cool protest only pulls in a certain type of person and its not obvious that this is condusive to long term movement building. People have started to judge a protests sucessfulness by how much fighting took place as if the fighting could lead somewhere. Its not that violence is bad, its just delusional to think that small scale rioting can have much effect. A police crackdown on a bunch of twentysomethings breaking windows is not a step towards a glorious revolution. Real change takes the support (if not the action) of the bulk of the population.Small scale property damage may gain one support of the population or it may lose one support, but small scale property damage isnt in itself a revolutionary act that will lead to anything directly.

The post above by the Trotskyist glad to see people kicking ass, sums up the problem with these types of protests. A movement that will change things must base its action off real strategy. When the strategy only leads to things that some people find cool (or a machismo sense of "respect" that seems confined primarilly to white males in their early 20s), the end result is a movement that will dead end.

Am glad to see so many people from different countries and all walks of life standing together against the WTO..

los pueblos unidos!!

Various tactics are not always going to please everyone, but we know the tactics of the military and multinational corporations. Self defense against brutal military cops is not defined violent. Standing against oppression sometimes requires people defending themselves against police with deadlier weapons..

For the liberal types who are concerned of getting a bad rap, if u can take your time waiting for changes against neocolonialism in the form of WTO/multinationals..
how much do u really want the status quo to change??

Personally i support the actions of the protesters 110 percent. We will protect the environment and indigenous people's sovereignty by ALL MEANS neccesary..

Shut down WTO!!

Ya basta!!

"For the liberal types who are concerned of getting a bad rap, if u can take your time waiting for changes against neocolonialism in the form of WTO/multinationals.. "

I support the actions too, but I wouldnt say its a liberal vs radical issue. Attacking a fence is a symbolic act that is good presswise, but its not really a blow against Capitalism. I guess thats what I was trying to say; to make "doing something" equivalent to "attacking something physically" doesnt get a movement anywhere (and alienates people who cant participate for physical or legal reasons). If protesters tore down all of the fences and shut the WTO meeting down it would have an effect, but the WTO could actually be ablolished if pressure were put in the right places (violently and nonviolently) in member countries. Strangely I think people would be more excited about a strorming of a building than if the WTO actually were forced to cease to exist through less exciting forms of activism.

yeah violence is bad. we need to just sit down and talk with the dirty cappo's and we'll work everything out...

We should also take into account the 100 ft. tall radical side of the argument. The more bad press, and the more they play up that bad press, the better off we are in the eyes of youth, and youth enegry is needed for any revolution.
Nixon was the best friend a radical could ever have in the 70's because he was both scary himself and paranoid as all hell. He and the conservative press played up the image of radicals as if they acutally were overthrowing the government. This media acutally added momentum to the movment. Media turned radicals into a force that acutally WAS capable of overthrowing the government, and nearly did. The media made radicals 100 ft. tall.

Our movement is based on some very different values, but I think the need for bad press remains the same. It brings people into our movement for the wrong reason, but once in the movement we can show them the right reasons.
We've got our own media establishments in place (though we need more). That is the foundingblock of any revolution. Bad press generally helps us, so long as we can get out the real story to enough people.

And by the way, remember that the MEDIA defines a good protest by the number of arrests. "This protest clearly shows that resistance to the war on terror is down, since there were no arrests."

"The more bad press, and the more they play up that bad press, the better off we are in the eyes of youth, and youth enegry is needed for any revolution. "

Thats a real argument and could just as easilly be supported by liberals, moderates or radicals (or even the dreaded Social Democrats). People can storm fences at rock concerts or at protests, its the desired result that makes the radicalism not the action.

There is nothing in and of itself radical about property damage. People who support it are not any more radical (or less radical) than those who think its a bad tactic. In certain cases it can be good and in certain cases it can be counterproductive. Its dangerous when a tactic gets equated with politics, since then all attempts at strategy get thrown out the window.

Our troops are risking their lives battling to make the world a better place. Whats this whining about nonviolence when there is so much at stake. Do you think the enemy is worried about nonviolence when they attack us with their clubs and gas.

Your either with us or your with the enemy.
Support our troops and hope they come back from Cancun safe and sound.

The anti-WTO movement is one that will kill itself (Korean farmers notwithstanding). One post describes the bribery to enter the US to work, such corruption would not have a market if that job were available in Mexico. Mexico, and other nations, need a market for their goods, the US needs a market for its services. Thus, the WTO or a similar initiative improves the lives of residents of both countries.
People who oppose the WTO ignore the great progress lesser-developed nations have made in attempting free trade. Yet, the most impoverished nations are those unable or unwilling to trade on a global market. You, as protesters, are stealing food from their mouths; you are killing millions of people who want to live.
It's easy, sitting in your comfort, typing away at your new computer in air-conditioned luxury. You would DEMAND global markets to open up if you were in Benin, eating a handful of oats a week.

are why american activism sucks so bad. take your pick:

chevron/toxico?
or cancun, mexico?

i know where i would have rather been this week. cancun. i know where i was. richmond. i found the choreographed, police-liaisoned "civil disobedience" depressing.

this violence was well-directed and necessary. it is very clear that without the cops this fighting would be taking place in the conference. if liberal american wieners convince people to give up everytime a line of cops materializes then well never accomplish anything.

the cops are not the issue, fine, but when they get between the protesters and the objective, they get what they deserve.

Hey, I just checked google news to see what coverage had registered for the Chevron protest in Richmond two days ago where 22 people were symbolically arrested at the gates. I don't think there was anything in the Chronicle at all.

It says that someone was arrested for trespassing this morning, after the main protest?
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2474858/detail.html

And ktvu was the only channel that really covered the main protest. There was a NPR stringer for 'Marketplace' program too.

History:
The activist's create a problem for the system.
The system creates a solution to the problem.
Da'Man lays out the new rules for protesting.
The activist's follow the rules.
No problem.

We cannot afford to follow the rules.

One of the main problems with tactical violence is that it forces us into the realm of "might makes right" and according to that philosophy the superpowers are "right". In other words we cant win with violence because the superpowers have the military capabilities to crush us should it become necessary to sustain their power. But we CAN win with a nonviolent revolution because, in freer societies at least, the law protects our right to assemble. The superpowers can only combat a nonviolent revolution with propoganda, not military force, and that my comrades is a battle we CAN win!

One of the main problems with tactical violence is that it forces us into the realm of "might makes right" and according to that philosophy the superpowers are "right". In other words we cant win with violence because the superpowers have the military capabilities to crush us should it become necessary to sustain their power. But we CAN win with a nonviolent revolution because, in freer societies at least, the law protects our right to assemble. The superpowers can only combat a nonviolent revolution with propoganda, not military force, and that my comrades is a battle we CAN win!

While as people pointed out Richmond got almost no press coverage while the WTO protests did get some coverage, what exactly was the extent of the WTO coverage?

About 50% was because a man killed himself and the rest didnt really detail much about the issues. The corporate media is always bad but there comes a time when the same tactics get old and the media wont cover something since the same old same old not longer seems that exciting. Small scale property damage can get old in terms of its tactical use for getting something into the corporate media.

Tell that to the Jews who survived the Holocaust by killing their guards and burning Treblinka to the ground.

"Tell that to the Jews who survived the Holocaust by killing their guards and burning Treblinka to the ground."

And this relates to WTO protests how?

If people were breaking political prisoners out of jail, stopping logging or saving human or animal lives that would be one thing. Violence at large protests is really only about media attention since there is no real direct aim (in Seattle there was the chance of stopping the conference but thats because they were not prepared). That doesnt make it wrong but when your only tool is a hammer everything strangely starts to look like a nail.

I hope this picture from the current protest captures the strange relationship between corporate press and violence at protests; note that the rock being thrown isnt actually AT anything but only for the benefit of those taking pictures(its almost like the professional wrestling except the audience has gotten bored)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030912/168/58tnx.html

Ok... I scanned through most of what was said above, and I didnt see the easiest and most simple exsplanation (spelling).


Its as simple as this... The reason for theres warriors to be in Cancun is to SHUT THE MEETING DOWN. The Policia set up road blocks and try to have the meeting go on.

To get to where the meeting is happening and disrupt it...THEY NEED TO TAKE DOWN THAT FENCE AND FUCK THE COPS UP!

Done and Done. Sorry it has to come to violance, but the meeting will go on if it doesnt....The End.

Hope Some of you make it To san D this saturday! march to the Border and Join Your Sisters and Brothers in Cancun by saying no to the WTO and no To Borders!


Love,
Smash It Up

Eventually there will be, and most likely by then it will be too late for all of us.

These actions do a lot more than you realize.

Yes, the direct action has become a media spectacle - does that mean we should stop direct action? We don't know why this person is throwing a rock. We see that he has the courage to do it and risk arrest, beatings, and a long jail sentence as a 'terrorist.'

Corporate media has its objective, but it isn't omnicient - it cannot know all outcomes to all acts. A relationship has developed between corproate media and direct action. But can you really define it? Do YOU know all outcomes? I know that the rock through the INS window was a great feeling, and that people from all over the world supported that on this site. The Hearst media made a fool of itself trying to cut down all direct action in SF, in the same way they made fools of themselves trying to cut down the protest numbers with huge front page headlines. It was transparent to most.

Even symbolic acts run deep, maybe deeper than stopping a meeting directly could. And the courage is infectious. We all want to be that strong.

To me, if nothing else, these are preparing us for the future. Do you see it any other way? I hope for something more. But the way things are going, many (not most, as corporate media would have you believe) Americans are reduced to a hypnotic state for 90% of their lives and they'll gladly beat any head that don't look like theirs until their own is beat in. And the rest will quietly go about their work until there is no more, and then it will be too late.

"Even symbolic acts run deep, maybe deeper than stopping a meeting directly could. And the courage is infectious. We all want to be that strong. "

Its better than nothing and its better than a nonviolent protests in Cancun with no coverage.

But, the media aspect is growing thin since its no longer new. The US media does control public opinion but its also just trying to sell product so its not that hard to manipulate it. There needs to be a concerted effort by activists on all issues to reach out to "ordinary" Americans. Seattle reached kids in areas where no activism existed but the latests protests didnt since they required a little work to find the coverage. There is also a need to reach out to adults and people who are not solely motivated by spectacle; there are attempts by more mainstream groups (although they do seem to focus on liberal pockets of the US), but there is no radical alternative yet. Perhaps its partly since radicalism is now defined by tactic rather than goal.

How do we take all of the energy going into these globalization protests and aim it at somthing that can grow? Perhaps some variation? G8 leaders and the WTO now meet in places that cost a lot to get to and are almost impossible for protesters to shut down. But the same is not yet true for meetings of boards of directors of private companies. The same is not yet true for many tradeshows (the protests in London last week being a good example) etc.. In many nonUS cities one might even be able to organize transport workers to go on an unannounced strike right before the meetings starts to shut things down that way? A little originality in tactics and more of a focus on achieving goals might help reenergize the "movement". Otherwise I fear the protests will get smaller and without media coverage the effectiveness of the protests will become more and more questionable.

"Iraqi residents celebrate the destruction of a US military vehicle in the flashpoint town of Fallujah, which has been the scene of repeated attacks on US troops by suspected loyalists of Saddam Hussein's ousted regime.(AFP/Karim Sahib)"

Now here is an example of a new form of protest that draws in the media, has a very directed aim and from the looks on the faces of the people in the pictures looks like a whole lot of fun. Dancing on the ruins of US armoured vehicles in itself isnt really "doing anything" but the message it send through the media is a very powerful one; "the US is ina quagmire and doesnt have the support of the people". I think this is a much more effective protest tactic than attacking fences or windows. Dancing on burnt miltary vehicles used to protect oil can unite many movements; its anticar, its anti-imperialist, its antiCapitalist... Dancing on burnt US military vehicles really brings the quote about being able to "dance in the revolution" to life. The people dancing on the vehicles didnt have to pay huge amounts of money to get to the site and its an activity the whole familly can participate in (in many pictures you see kids as young as 5 or 6 hapilly dancing on burnt hummers). There are US military vehicles just about everywhere in the world these days so although this new form of protests was invented in Iraq it is likely to spread to many other countries (and perhaps even the US?).

I disagree. There are people who will automatically do try to appeal to the ordinary person - like, I'm assuming, yourself - and there are people who will do something else, entirely unacceptable to ordinaries.

We do what our genes tell us we must do. For the people who think we must reach out to ordinaries, controlling the acts of others down to every rock they want to throw will never work - you are simply falling prey to the tactics of the right. They want to corner you into doing whatever 'ordinaries' will accept. And how do the 'ordinaries' know what they will accept? The corporate media will be deciding that. And believe me, it won't be anything that will inconvenience them.

The ordinaries would not have bought the civil rights movement, nor most other movements of which they are comfortably unaware.

We all do what we must based on each of our own unique natures. We all need each other to function in our separate roles. But we cannot control others. We need to focus on our own situation, not how to force others to do what we think they should do.

the US media isnt the only media there is.

just because it doesnt get covered in our mainstream press doesnt mean the rest of the world doesnt hear about it and get inspired by it.

yes i. damn the man. when you sign up for the army you know you probably get to shot and possibly kill people. opps they forget to tell you that people will be shooting back at you. when you sign up to be a cop/pig you gotta know that you are wearing a target. serve and protect is not a motto anymore. these cops in cancun are just pawns that are under paid and fooled into thinking that they are doing the right thing. duh...... you go to hit somebody you gotta figure somebody is gonna hit you back. p.e. says it FIGHT THE POWER

there is little coverage in mainstream media in most countries:

http://www.thehindu.com/
http://www.lemonde.fr/
http://www.prensalatina.com.mx/
http://www.aljazeera.net/
etc...

There is some good coverage through alternative media but thats talking to the converted.

Ultimately to change things worldwide the change must begin in the US (since the US has its foot on the back of the neck of most other countries). Unless the US public can be made to restrain the US miltary and economy few changes outside the US will last, Venezuela is a good example of what happens when a country tries to act on its own. So far Chavez has held out but its ultimately just a matter of time.

If radicalism means attacking fences and throwing rocks and liberalism is organizing on a larger scale to actually change things, that would have made the Sandanista revolution, the Russian revolution and the Cuban revolutions liberal acts. There is nothing wrong with small scale property damage but its hardly something that is in the direction of real change. In a way black bloc actions are really liberal at heart (in the "love me Im a liberal" tradition but now applied towards middle class youth rather than the adults). During the beginning of the current Iraq war there were places where organized group did change things (sometimes through street protests and property damage) but I would point to Turkey and Greece rather than the larger protests in England and Italy as examples of what works. Was Turkey forced to not allow the US to stage operations from Southern Turkey because a fear of youth throwing stones? I think they were afraid of a larger group that may have helped out with the protests but actually threatened the state itself. In Britain did protests (including kids throwing stones) bring about changes in N Ireland? Or did it take the IRA? In Palestine, kids throwing stones exist but its the groups behind them that are actually posing a threat (and I think black bloc tactics would seem silly to actual militants). Its not that armed resistance is the only thing that can force change, its that organization, strategy and more throught out tactics can have alarger effect than tactics mainly aimed at the moment. Organization is dangerous since it helps authorities track people down but tactical cells (like ELF,ALF,the Weather Underground, Red Army Fraction) have been able to carry out actions with both media and actual change in mind. Illegal actions at locations chosen by authorities (the police chose where to set up the fence and the WTO chose the location) seems both dangerous and unlikely to lead to any more than people getting caught or hurt.

"Ultimately to change things worldwide the change must begin in the US "

The Precautionary Principle, as applied to business practices in cities, began elsewhere and is now being picked up in the US. There are many other examples of ideas and change that did not start in the US.

On How to protest, I believe that only those who protest can decide of how the protest will go. The Korean farmer made a firm decision in taking his life and I believe that is the ultimate form of protest. Equal to those who flew airplanes into the belie of the beast a few years ago. The amount of pain involved in creating those types of protest is dificult for me to imagine. Its like war = more war and I think we can do whatever we deam necesary to change that on an individual level.
I'm a firm believer in the Quiet Revolution or otherwise called the Velorution. If all the people who are against the system would abandon the automobile and its associates like planes and get around slower and more efficiently energy consumption wise we would not have to protest anything. The consumer society would just evaporate. I understand many in the third world are already there. We are waiting for our US friends to get more active that way.
The US has a long history of following others especially Canadians:-) Just watch how long it takes the US to use the metric system, the bicycle, there are many other things like peace and dropping the guns and adoring a flag. There is no bigining and no end to protest and revolution. Some of us know about the French Revolution and are we not fighting the same isues today? If the world would not feed US hunger, it would starve. What the US does is totally unsustainable.
I believe we need to change the political system which empowers money and machines and leaves people without food or land to grow our own. Its obvious to many that cars and other machines are useless or even less than that they are distructive and equal to bombs so if the US wants to be first at something they would do well is deleting those impossible things they have made. I think they made nuclear bombs first.
I feel a guilt being stuck in front of a computer myself and I don't think anyone is better than anyone else.
In conclusion if anyone is into a real revolution just let go of the motor and take some time to do it as its a very complex and efficient protest.
with Velolove
Guy

Go fucking vote or pretend you get something accomplished, politics only get you NOWHERE.

Revolution is now, too bad you're too busy buying the bullshit to figure it out.

Fence Torn Down During Anti-WTO Clashes


Amazing!

The hobbyists actually accomplished SOMETHING.

I'm sure the WTO will now summarily fold.